I am a little confused, I thought Intel had a big push the last couple of years to create its own GPU:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/discre...

The silicon is just one piece of the puzzle. CUDA and the rest of the software stack is huge advantage for NVIDIA.

Good to hear. More than two players in the GPU market is a really good thing and their recent dedicated consumer GPUs are really good value in their segment. It will take a few generations until they might catch up to Nvidia, but I am hopeful. This is a good thing.

So they are just moving GPU production in-house? Weren't they already designing GPUs for contract with TSMC?

Deja Vu all over again.

2016 Nervana. Intel would lead in AI training. The "Nervana NNP" was the future.

2019 Habana Intel announced the Gaudi and Goya chips as their new official AI strategy, effectively killing the Nervana project.

2021 Xe general HPC/AI GPU (Ponte Vecchio) Intel said they will be shifting to the "AI chip" market.

2023 The "AI PC". every consumer CPU would now be an "AI Chip" with NPU (Neural Processing Unit).

2024 Intel is now "AI Systems Foundry" to focus on making AI chips for other people (like Microsoft and Amazon).

2026 Intel will start making GPUs

3 years too late to get serious about GPUs.

It's a confusing article. It's strongly implies that Intel will make GPUs for data centers. It says Intel will produce GPUs without saying whether they are manufacturing them in house or not.

Intel has been designing GPUs manufactured on TSMC nodes across client and datacenter for at least the past 5 years. The client chips are price competitive but not performance competitive with AMD/NVIDIA/Apple. The data center roadmap has historically been a huge mess with cancelled products left and right. But, to say "Intel will start making GPUs" seems misleading. Perhaps "Intel to try to inject sanity into its GPU roadmap" would be a better headline, though I am skeptical one hire will do anything to fix 10+ years of mismanagement.

It is my understanding that this isn't happening in any meaningful capacity, they're simply using the kit no longer relevant to R&D.

I'm still not entirely convinced they actually did Arc themselves. It has all the hallmarks of a project that was bought or taken. Every meaningful iteration keeps getting pushed back further out towards the horizon and the only thing they've been able to offer in the meantime is "uhhhh what if we used two"

intel has been making graphics silicon since the 90s, the current discrete graphics effort has been going for at least a decade, and in areas like low power video decode and encode it could be argued intel is class-leading. the concept of the "GPU" is a quarter of a century old. this is an especially poor article, especially for a publication running as long as techcrunch.

The CEO of Intel already specifically said Intel has given up competing with Nvidia.

That’s the spirit!

The most rapid path that Intel has to selling competitive GPUs, would be to licence designs from Groq, and apply all effort to getting them working on 14a.

Hyperscalers would bite their hand off and would be a viable alternative to TSMC.

Nvidia has left the door open with the non-exclusive license in the acquisition

Wtf Intel is doing, they can't even communicate well !

I'd be more excited about Intel making HBM.

They've been trying for nearly 30 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel740

“We realized that we were too focused on the consumer market. “ - Intel